bmad-enhanced 1.3.0 → 1.3.2
This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
- package/CHANGELOG.md +624 -0
- package/UPDATE-GUIDE.md +378 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/agents/contextualization-expert.md +100 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/agents/lean-experiments-specialist.md +118 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/_deprecated/empathy-map/empathy-map.template.md +143 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/_deprecated/empathy-map/steps/step-01-define-user.md +60 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/_deprecated/empathy-map/steps/step-02-says-thinks.md +67 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/_deprecated/empathy-map/steps/step-03-does-feels.md +79 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/_deprecated/empathy-map/steps/step-04-pain-points.md +87 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/_deprecated/empathy-map/steps/step-05-gains.md +103 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/_deprecated/empathy-map/steps/step-06-synthesize.md +104 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/_deprecated/empathy-map/validate.md +117 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/_deprecated/empathy-map/workflow.md +44 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/_deprecated/wireframe/steps/step-01-define-requirements.md +85 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/_deprecated/wireframe/steps/step-02-user-flows.md +59 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/_deprecated/wireframe/steps/step-03-information-architecture.md +68 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/_deprecated/wireframe/steps/step-04-wireframe-sketch.md +97 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/_deprecated/wireframe/steps/step-05-components.md +128 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/_deprecated/wireframe/steps/step-06-synthesize.md +83 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/_deprecated/wireframe/wireframe.template.md +287 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/_deprecated/wireframe/workflow.md +44 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/contextualize-scope/contextualize-scope.template.md +67 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/contextualize-scope/steps/step-01-list-opportunities.md +47 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/contextualize-scope/steps/step-02-define-criteria.md +36 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/contextualize-scope/steps/step-03-evaluate-opportunities.md +30 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/contextualize-scope/steps/step-04-define-boundaries.md +32 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/contextualize-scope/steps/step-05-validate-fit.md +28 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/contextualize-scope/steps/step-06-synthesize.md +30 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/contextualize-scope/validate.md +30 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/contextualize-scope/workflow.md +59 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-experiment/lean-experiment.template.md +29 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-experiment/steps/step-01.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-experiment/steps/step-02.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-experiment/steps/step-03.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-experiment/steps/step-04.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-experiment/steps/step-05.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-experiment/steps/step-06.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-experiment/validate.md +30 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-experiment/workflow.md +26 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-persona/lean-persona.template.md +163 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-persona/steps/step-01-define-job.md +72 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-persona/steps/step-02-current-solution.md +83 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-persona/steps/step-03-problem-contexts.md +90 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-persona/steps/step-04-forces-anxieties.md +98 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-persona/steps/step-05-success-criteria.md +103 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-persona/steps/step-06-synthesize.md +116 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-persona/validate.md +30 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/lean-persona/workflow.md +50 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/mvp/mvp.template.md +40 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/mvp/steps/step-01-riskiest-assumption.md +17 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/mvp/steps/step-02-success-criteria.md +13 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/mvp/steps/step-03-smallest-test.md +13 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/mvp/steps/step-04-scope-features.md +13 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/mvp/steps/step-05-build-measure-learn.md +13 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/mvp/steps/step-06-synthesize.md +13 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/mvp/validate.md +30 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/mvp/workflow.md +36 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/product-vision/product-vision.template.md +147 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/product-vision/steps/step-01-define-problem.md +89 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/product-vision/steps/step-02-target-market.md +91 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/product-vision/steps/step-03-unique-approach.md +87 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/product-vision/steps/step-04-future-state.md +100 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/product-vision/steps/step-05-principles.md +92 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/product-vision/steps/step-06-synthesize.md +155 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/product-vision/validate.md +30 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/product-vision/workflow.md +55 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-concept/proof-of-concept.template.md +25 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-concept/steps/step-01.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-concept/steps/step-02.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-concept/steps/step-03.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-concept/steps/step-04.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-concept/steps/step-05.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-concept/steps/step-06.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-concept/validate.md +30 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-concept/workflow.md +26 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-value/proof-of-value.template.md +29 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-value/steps/step-01.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-value/steps/step-02.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-value/steps/step-03.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-value/steps/step-04.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-value/steps/step-05.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-value/steps/step-06.md +8 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-value/validate.md +30 -0
- package/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/proof-of-value/workflow.md +26 -0
- package/_bmad-output/vortex-artifacts/EMMA-USER-GUIDE.md +450 -0
- package/_bmad-output/vortex-artifacts/WADE-USER-GUIDE.md +471 -0
- package/package.json +1 -1
- package/scripts/update/migrations/1.0.x-to-1.3.0.js +16 -0
- package/scripts/update/migrations/1.1.x-to-1.3.0.js +16 -0
- package/scripts/update/migrations/1.2.x-to-1.3.0.js +16 -0
|
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
---
|
|
2
|
+
step: 1
|
|
3
|
+
workflow: product-vision
|
|
4
|
+
title: Define the Problem
|
|
5
|
+
---
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
# Step 1: Define the Problem
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
Before envisioning the solution, we need crystal clarity on the problem we're solving.
|
|
10
|
+
|
|
11
|
+
## Why This Matters
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
A great product starts with a deep understanding of a meaningful problem. Without clarity on the problem:
|
|
14
|
+
- You'll build features nobody needs
|
|
15
|
+
- You won't know if you're making progress
|
|
16
|
+
- You can't articulate why your product should exist
|
|
17
|
+
- You'll struggle to say "no" to distractions
|
|
18
|
+
|
|
19
|
+
## Your Task
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
Answer these questions to define the problem:
|
|
22
|
+
|
|
23
|
+
### 1. What's the core problem?
|
|
24
|
+
Be specific. One sentence that captures the essence of what's broken.
|
|
25
|
+
|
|
26
|
+
### 2. Who experiences this problem?
|
|
27
|
+
Not "everyone" - be specific about who feels this pain most acutely.
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
### 3. Why does this problem matter?
|
|
30
|
+
What's the impact? Cost? Frustration? Missed opportunity?
|
|
31
|
+
|
|
32
|
+
### 4. How big is this problem?
|
|
33
|
+
- How many people experience it?
|
|
34
|
+
- How often?
|
|
35
|
+
- What's the total market opportunity?
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
### 5. What evidence do you have?
|
|
38
|
+
- User research? Market data?
|
|
39
|
+
- Personal experience?
|
|
40
|
+
- Industry reports?
|
|
41
|
+
- Or is this a hypothesis?
|
|
42
|
+
|
|
43
|
+
### 6. What alternatives exist today?
|
|
44
|
+
How do people solve this now? What's limiting about those solutions?
|
|
45
|
+
|
|
46
|
+
## Example
|
|
47
|
+
|
|
48
|
+
**Core Problem:**
|
|
49
|
+
Remote team managers lack real-time visibility into team progress, leading to surprises when deadlines are missed.
|
|
50
|
+
|
|
51
|
+
**Who:**
|
|
52
|
+
Managers of 5-20 person distributed software teams in fast-moving startups
|
|
53
|
+
|
|
54
|
+
**Why It Matters:**
|
|
55
|
+
- Missed deadlines damage customer relationships
|
|
56
|
+
- Reactive firefighting instead of proactive planning
|
|
57
|
+
- Manager anxiety and team frustration from constant status checks
|
|
58
|
+
- Estimated $50K-200K annual cost per team in missed opportunities and churn
|
|
59
|
+
|
|
60
|
+
**Market Size:**
|
|
61
|
+
- 2M+ distributed software teams globally
|
|
62
|
+
- Growing 25% YoY (remote work acceleration)
|
|
63
|
+
- $15B total addressable market (team collaboration tools)
|
|
64
|
+
|
|
65
|
+
**Evidence:**
|
|
66
|
+
- 50 interviews with remote managers
|
|
67
|
+
- 75% cited "lack of visibility" as top frustration
|
|
68
|
+
- Survey of 500 distributed teams
|
|
69
|
+
- Personal experience managing distributed teams for 5 years
|
|
70
|
+
|
|
71
|
+
**Current Alternatives:**
|
|
72
|
+
- Weekly status meetings (time-consuming, lag visibility)
|
|
73
|
+
- Slack check-ins (noisy, easy to miss critical updates)
|
|
74
|
+
- Project management tools (team doesn't update them consistently)
|
|
75
|
+
- **Limitation:** All require manual updates or scheduled check-ins
|
|
76
|
+
|
|
77
|
+
---
|
|
78
|
+
|
|
79
|
+
## Your Turn
|
|
80
|
+
|
|
81
|
+
Define the problem using the structure above.
|
|
82
|
+
|
|
83
|
+
**Tip:** If you can't clearly articulate the problem, stop. Don't proceed to building a solution without problem clarity.
|
|
84
|
+
|
|
85
|
+
## Next Step
|
|
86
|
+
|
|
87
|
+
When you've defined the problem clearly, I'll load:
|
|
88
|
+
|
|
89
|
+
{project-root}/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/product-vision/steps/step-02-target-market.md
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
---
|
|
2
|
+
step: 2
|
|
3
|
+
workflow: product-vision
|
|
4
|
+
title: Identify Target Market
|
|
5
|
+
---
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
# Step 2: Identify Target Market
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
Now that we know the problem, let's get specific about WHO we're serving.
|
|
10
|
+
|
|
11
|
+
## Why This Matters
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
"Everyone" is not a target market. Trying to serve everyone means you serve no one well. Being specific about your target market:
|
|
14
|
+
- Focuses your messaging and positioning
|
|
15
|
+
- Guides product decisions (build for THESE users, not all users)
|
|
16
|
+
- Helps you find early adopters
|
|
17
|
+
- Makes your vision believable and achievable
|
|
18
|
+
|
|
19
|
+
## Your Task
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
Answer these questions about your target market:
|
|
22
|
+
|
|
23
|
+
### 1. Who is your primary target user?
|
|
24
|
+
The MOST important user segment. If you could only serve one group, who would it be?
|
|
25
|
+
|
|
26
|
+
### 2. What are their characteristics?
|
|
27
|
+
- Role/job title?
|
|
28
|
+
- Company size/industry?
|
|
29
|
+
- Technical sophistication?
|
|
30
|
+
- Budget authority?
|
|
31
|
+
|
|
32
|
+
### 3. Why start with this segment?
|
|
33
|
+
- Easiest to reach?
|
|
34
|
+
- Feel pain most acutely?
|
|
35
|
+
- Willing to pay?
|
|
36
|
+
- Will become advocates?
|
|
37
|
+
|
|
38
|
+
### 4. Secondary target users?
|
|
39
|
+
Who else might benefit (but deprioritize for now)?
|
|
40
|
+
|
|
41
|
+
### 5. Market segments within target?
|
|
42
|
+
Any sub-segments with different needs?
|
|
43
|
+
|
|
44
|
+
### 6. Beachhead strategy?
|
|
45
|
+
Where do you start to prove the concept before expanding?
|
|
46
|
+
|
|
47
|
+
## Example
|
|
48
|
+
|
|
49
|
+
**Primary Target:**
|
|
50
|
+
Engineering managers at Series A-C startups (20-200 employees) managing distributed teams of 5-15 engineers
|
|
51
|
+
|
|
52
|
+
**Characteristics:**
|
|
53
|
+
- **Role:** Engineering Manager, Director of Engineering, VP Engineering
|
|
54
|
+
- **Company:** VC-backed startups, product-led, remote-first culture
|
|
55
|
+
- **Team Size:** 5-15 direct reports, distributed across 2-4 timezones
|
|
56
|
+
- **Tech Stack:** Modern (GitHub, Slack, Linear/Jira)
|
|
57
|
+
- **Budget Authority:** $5K-25K annual budget for team tools
|
|
58
|
+
- **Pain Intensity:** HIGH - under pressure to ship fast, teams growing quickly
|
|
59
|
+
|
|
60
|
+
**Why Start Here:**
|
|
61
|
+
- Feel pain most acutely (fast growth + distributed teams = visibility crisis)
|
|
62
|
+
- Budget to pay for solutions (not hobbyists or freelancers)
|
|
63
|
+
- Influencers (speak at conferences, write blogs, shape industry)
|
|
64
|
+
- Natural network effects (one manager adopts → tells peers)
|
|
65
|
+
|
|
66
|
+
**Secondary Targets** (Deprioritize for now):
|
|
67
|
+
- Product managers at similar companies
|
|
68
|
+
- Tech leads managing cross-functional teams
|
|
69
|
+
- Enterprise teams (different needs, slower sales cycles)
|
|
70
|
+
|
|
71
|
+
**Market Segments:**
|
|
72
|
+
- **Segment A:** First-time engineering managers (high pain, low budget)
|
|
73
|
+
- **Segment B:** Experienced managers at growing startups (high pain, high budget) ← START HERE
|
|
74
|
+
- **Segment C:** Directors/VPs managing managers (different workflow needs)
|
|
75
|
+
|
|
76
|
+
**Beachhead:**
|
|
77
|
+
YC companies (tight community, concentrated in SF/remote, high pain, willing to try new tools, natural advocates)
|
|
78
|
+
|
|
79
|
+
---
|
|
80
|
+
|
|
81
|
+
## Your Turn
|
|
82
|
+
|
|
83
|
+
Identify your target market using the structure above.
|
|
84
|
+
|
|
85
|
+
**Tip:** If you find yourself saying "and also this group, and also that group," you're not focused enough. Pick ONE primary target and commit.
|
|
86
|
+
|
|
87
|
+
## Next Step
|
|
88
|
+
|
|
89
|
+
When you've identified your target market, I'll load:
|
|
90
|
+
|
|
91
|
+
{project-root}/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/product-vision/steps/step-03-unique-approach.md
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
---
|
|
2
|
+
step: 3
|
|
3
|
+
workflow: product-vision
|
|
4
|
+
title: Articulate Unique Approach
|
|
5
|
+
---
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
# Step 3: Articulate Unique Approach
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
What makes your solution different from (and better than) the alternatives?
|
|
10
|
+
|
|
11
|
+
## Why This Matters
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
If your approach isn't meaningfully different, you're just another commodity in a crowded market. Your unique approach:
|
|
14
|
+
- Gives people a reason to switch from their current solution
|
|
15
|
+
- Creates defensibility (hard to copy)
|
|
16
|
+
- Guides your product strategy
|
|
17
|
+
- Becomes the core of your positioning and messaging
|
|
18
|
+
|
|
19
|
+
## Your Task
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
Answer these questions about your unique approach:
|
|
22
|
+
|
|
23
|
+
### 1. What's your core insight?
|
|
24
|
+
What do you understand about the problem/solution that others don't?
|
|
25
|
+
|
|
26
|
+
### 2. What makes your approach different?
|
|
27
|
+
How does your solution differ from existing alternatives?
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
### 3. Why is your approach better?
|
|
30
|
+
For your target users, what advantage does your approach provide?
|
|
31
|
+
|
|
32
|
+
### 4. What's your unfair advantage?
|
|
33
|
+
What do you have (or can build) that's hard for competitors to replicate?
|
|
34
|
+
- Team expertise?
|
|
35
|
+
- Proprietary data/technology?
|
|
36
|
+
- Strategic partnerships?
|
|
37
|
+
- Network effects?
|
|
38
|
+
|
|
39
|
+
### 5. Why now?
|
|
40
|
+
What's changed that makes your approach possible or necessary now?
|
|
41
|
+
|
|
42
|
+
### 6. What trade-offs are you making?
|
|
43
|
+
Every approach has trade-offs. What are you optimizing for (and what are you sacrificing)?
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
## Example
|
|
46
|
+
|
|
47
|
+
**Core Insight:**
|
|
48
|
+
Team status shouldn't require manual updates or scheduled meetings - it should be automatically inferred from the team's existing workflow.
|
|
49
|
+
|
|
50
|
+
**Different Approach:**
|
|
51
|
+
Instead of asking teams to update another tool, we automatically aggregate signals from their existing tools (GitHub, Linear, Slack) to provide real-time status.
|
|
52
|
+
|
|
53
|
+
**Why Better:**
|
|
54
|
+
- **Zero overhead** - Team doesn't change their workflow
|
|
55
|
+
- **Real-time** - Updates instantly as work happens, not weekly
|
|
56
|
+
- **Proactive** - Surfaces problems before they're crises
|
|
57
|
+
- **Accurate** - Based on actual work, not what people remember to report
|
|
58
|
+
|
|
59
|
+
**Unfair Advantage:**
|
|
60
|
+
- Deep expertise in distributed systems (founding team from Datadog, New Relic)
|
|
61
|
+
- Existing integration partnerships with GitHub, Linear, Slack
|
|
62
|
+
- AI/ML models trained on 50K+ engineering teams' workflow patterns
|
|
63
|
+
- Network effects: More teams = better pattern recognition
|
|
64
|
+
|
|
65
|
+
**Why Now:**
|
|
66
|
+
- Remote work explosion created urgent need for passive visibility
|
|
67
|
+
- Modern tools have APIs (possible to aggregate signals)
|
|
68
|
+
- AI/ML maturity makes pattern recognition feasible
|
|
69
|
+
- Gen Z engineers refuse to "update another tool"
|
|
70
|
+
|
|
71
|
+
**Trade-offs:**
|
|
72
|
+
- ✅ **Optimizing for:** Zero-overhead for team, real-time accuracy
|
|
73
|
+
- ❌ **Sacrificing:** Fine-grained control (trusting automation), works only for teams using integrated tools, requires AI investment
|
|
74
|
+
|
|
75
|
+
---
|
|
76
|
+
|
|
77
|
+
## Your Turn
|
|
78
|
+
|
|
79
|
+
Articulate your unique approach using the structure above.
|
|
80
|
+
|
|
81
|
+
**Tip:** If your approach is "better UX" or "easier to use," that's not differentiated enough. WHY is it better? WHAT specifically makes it easier?
|
|
82
|
+
|
|
83
|
+
## Next Step
|
|
84
|
+
|
|
85
|
+
When you've articulated your unique approach, I'll load:
|
|
86
|
+
|
|
87
|
+
{project-root}/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/product-vision/steps/step-04-future-state.md
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
---
|
|
2
|
+
step: 4
|
|
3
|
+
workflow: product-vision
|
|
4
|
+
title: Envision Future State
|
|
5
|
+
---
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
# Step 4: Envision Future State
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
What does success look like 3-5 years from now?
|
|
10
|
+
|
|
11
|
+
## Why This Matters
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
A vision without a future state is just a feature list. Envisioning the future:
|
|
14
|
+
- Inspires the team (gets people excited about where we're going)
|
|
15
|
+
- Guides strategy (ensures today's decisions move toward that future)
|
|
16
|
+
- Helps prioritize (does this feature get us closer to the vision?)
|
|
17
|
+
- Creates alignment (everyone sees the same destination)
|
|
18
|
+
|
|
19
|
+
## Your Task
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
Answer these questions about your future state:
|
|
22
|
+
|
|
23
|
+
### 1. Where are we headed? (3-5 years)
|
|
24
|
+
Paint a picture of the future. What has changed? What impact have you created?
|
|
25
|
+
|
|
26
|
+
### 2. What does success look like?
|
|
27
|
+
- For users? (How has their life/work improved?)
|
|
28
|
+
- For your business? (Revenue? Users? Market position?)
|
|
29
|
+
- For the market? (What shift did you create?)
|
|
30
|
+
|
|
31
|
+
### 3. Key milestones along the way?
|
|
32
|
+
What are the major checkpoints on the path to that future?
|
|
33
|
+
|
|
34
|
+
### 4. What capabilities will you have built?
|
|
35
|
+
Not features - capabilities. What will you be uniquely good at?
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
### 5. How will the world be different?
|
|
38
|
+
What will be possible that isn't possible today?
|
|
39
|
+
|
|
40
|
+
### 6. What's your North Star metric?
|
|
41
|
+
The one metric that best captures progress toward this vision?
|
|
42
|
+
|
|
43
|
+
## Example
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
**Future State (3-5 Years):**
|
|
46
|
+
Team status anxiety is a thing of the past. Engineering managers at 10,000+ high-growth companies have real-time confidence in their team's progress without ever asking for status updates.
|
|
47
|
+
|
|
48
|
+
**Success Looks Like:**
|
|
49
|
+
|
|
50
|
+
**For Users:**
|
|
51
|
+
- Managers spend <5 min/day on status (vs. current 30-60 min)
|
|
52
|
+
- Zero manual status updates required from team
|
|
53
|
+
- Proactive alerts prevent 80% of deadline surprises
|
|
54
|
+
- Manager confidence score: 9/10 (vs. current 4/10)
|
|
55
|
+
|
|
56
|
+
**For Business:**
|
|
57
|
+
- $50M ARR, growing 100% YoY
|
|
58
|
+
- 10,000+ distributed engineering teams using the platform
|
|
59
|
+
- Category leader in "Automated Team Intelligence"
|
|
60
|
+
- 40% market share of Series A-C startup engineering teams
|
|
61
|
+
|
|
62
|
+
**For Market:**
|
|
63
|
+
- "Status meeting" becomes quaint relic (like fax machines)
|
|
64
|
+
- Industry standard: Teams produce status signals, AI interprets them
|
|
65
|
+
- Adjacent markets emerge (automated planning, predictive resource allocation)
|
|
66
|
+
|
|
67
|
+
**Key Milestones:**
|
|
68
|
+
- **Year 1:** 100 teams, product-market fit, $1M ARR
|
|
69
|
+
- **Year 2:** 1,000 teams, category creation, $10M ARR
|
|
70
|
+
- **Year 3:** 5,000 teams, enterprise expansion, $25M ARR
|
|
71
|
+
- **Year 4-5:** 10,000+ teams, market leadership, $50M+ ARR
|
|
72
|
+
|
|
73
|
+
**Capabilities We'll Build:**
|
|
74
|
+
- Best-in-class integrations with engineering tools
|
|
75
|
+
- Most accurate AI models for predicting software delivery
|
|
76
|
+
- Largest dataset of engineering workflow patterns
|
|
77
|
+
- Fastest time-to-insight (real-time, not batch)
|
|
78
|
+
|
|
79
|
+
**World Differently:**
|
|
80
|
+
- Engineering managers focus on coaching, not tracking
|
|
81
|
+
- Teams focus on building, not reporting
|
|
82
|
+
- Proactive planning replaces reactive firefighting
|
|
83
|
+
- Distributed teams are MORE visible than co-located teams (paradox!)
|
|
84
|
+
|
|
85
|
+
**North Star Metric:**
|
|
86
|
+
**Manager Confidence Score** - Daily measure of "How confident are you that your team is on track?" (Target: 9/10 average)
|
|
87
|
+
|
|
88
|
+
---
|
|
89
|
+
|
|
90
|
+
## Your Turn
|
|
91
|
+
|
|
92
|
+
Envision your future state using the structure above.
|
|
93
|
+
|
|
94
|
+
**Tip:** Make it inspiring but believable. "We'll replace all software engineers with AI" isn't believable. "We'll save engineering managers 10 hours/week" is believable and inspiring.
|
|
95
|
+
|
|
96
|
+
## Next Step
|
|
97
|
+
|
|
98
|
+
When you've envisioned the future state, I'll load:
|
|
99
|
+
|
|
100
|
+
{project-root}/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/product-vision/steps/step-05-principles.md
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
---
|
|
2
|
+
step: 5
|
|
3
|
+
workflow: product-vision
|
|
4
|
+
title: Align on Principles
|
|
5
|
+
---
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
# Step 5: Align on Principles
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
What won't you compromise on? What principles guide your decisions?
|
|
10
|
+
|
|
11
|
+
## Why This Matters
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
Principles are your decision-making framework when there's no clear answer. They help you:
|
|
14
|
+
- Say "no" to tempting but misaligned opportunities
|
|
15
|
+
- Make consistent decisions as you scale
|
|
16
|
+
- Maintain product integrity
|
|
17
|
+
- Align the team on values
|
|
18
|
+
|
|
19
|
+
Without clear principles, you'll drift or make contradictory decisions.
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
## Your Task
|
|
22
|
+
|
|
23
|
+
Answer these questions about your guiding principles:
|
|
24
|
+
|
|
25
|
+
### 1. What won't you compromise?
|
|
26
|
+
Even if it means slower growth or harder sales? What are your non-negotiables?
|
|
27
|
+
|
|
28
|
+
### 2. What do you say NO to?
|
|
29
|
+
Equally important - what will you consciously NOT do?
|
|
30
|
+
|
|
31
|
+
### 3. What are your core values?
|
|
32
|
+
The beliefs that guide how you build and operate?
|
|
33
|
+
|
|
34
|
+
### 4. How do you make trade-off decisions?
|
|
35
|
+
When you must choose between competing goods, what wins?
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
### 5. What's your product philosophy?
|
|
38
|
+
Simple vs. powerful? Open vs. opinionated? Fast vs. perfect?
|
|
39
|
+
|
|
40
|
+
### 6. What kind of company do you want to build?
|
|
41
|
+
Your values shape your culture, which shapes your product.
|
|
42
|
+
|
|
43
|
+
## Example
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
**Won't Compromise:**
|
|
46
|
+
1. **Zero overhead for engineering teams** - If it adds work for engineers, we won't build it
|
|
47
|
+
2. **Privacy & security** - Never sell data, never compromise security for features
|
|
48
|
+
3. **Real-time accuracy** - Stale dashboards are useless; we optimize for freshness
|
|
49
|
+
|
|
50
|
+
**Say NO To:**
|
|
51
|
+
- ❌ Manual time-tracking or status updates (violates zero-overhead principle)
|
|
52
|
+
- ❌ "Works better with our project management tool" (should work with ANY tool)
|
|
53
|
+
- ❌ Gamification/leaderboards (creates wrong incentives, stresses teams)
|
|
54
|
+
- ❌ Enterprise-only features (no fragmentation between tiers on core value)
|
|
55
|
+
|
|
56
|
+
**Core Values:**
|
|
57
|
+
- **Respect eng team time** - Managers get value, teams pay no cost
|
|
58
|
+
- **Truth over comfort** - Show reality, even if uncomfortable
|
|
59
|
+
- **Automation over process** - Technology should reduce overhead, not create it
|
|
60
|
+
- **Privacy by design** - Individual work stays private, only team patterns surface
|
|
61
|
+
|
|
62
|
+
**Trade-off Framework:**
|
|
63
|
+
When choosing between:
|
|
64
|
+
- **Speed vs. Accuracy** → Accuracy wins (wrong data worse than no data)
|
|
65
|
+
- **Simple vs. Powerful** → Simple wins (power users can use APIs)
|
|
66
|
+
- **Privacy vs. Insight** → Privacy wins (aggregate patterns, not individual activity)
|
|
67
|
+
- **Open vs. Opinionated** → Opinionated wins (best practices baked in)
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
**Product Philosophy:**
|
|
70
|
+
- **Opinionated simplicity** - Strong defaults, easy to start, hard to misconfigure
|
|
71
|
+
- **Progressive disclosure** - Simple surface, power underneath
|
|
72
|
+
- **Passive intelligence** - Works in background, surfaces insights proactively
|
|
73
|
+
|
|
74
|
+
**Company We're Building:**
|
|
75
|
+
- Remote-first (we're the customer)
|
|
76
|
+
- Sustainable growth over hypergrowth
|
|
77
|
+
- Engineering-led culture
|
|
78
|
+
- Long-term thinking (10-year vision)
|
|
79
|
+
|
|
80
|
+
---
|
|
81
|
+
|
|
82
|
+
## Your Turn
|
|
83
|
+
|
|
84
|
+
Define your guiding principles using the structure above.
|
|
85
|
+
|
|
86
|
+
**Tip:** Principles are only useful if they're specific enough to guide decisions. "Quality is important" isn't a principle. "We won't ship features that haven't been tested with 10+ real users" is a principle.
|
|
87
|
+
|
|
88
|
+
## Next Step
|
|
89
|
+
|
|
90
|
+
When you've aligned on principles, I'll load:
|
|
91
|
+
|
|
92
|
+
{project-root}/_bmad/bme/_vortex/workflows/product-vision/steps/step-06-synthesize.md
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,155 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
---
|
|
2
|
+
step: 6
|
|
3
|
+
workflow: product-vision
|
|
4
|
+
title: Synthesize
|
|
5
|
+
---
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
# Step 6: Synthesize
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
Let's bring it all together into a cohesive product vision document.
|
|
10
|
+
|
|
11
|
+
## Why This Matters
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
Your product vision document becomes:
|
|
14
|
+
- The alignment tool for your team (everyone sees the same destination)
|
|
15
|
+
- The decision-making framework (does this serve the vision?)
|
|
16
|
+
- The communication artifact (pitches, hiring, partnerships)
|
|
17
|
+
- The strategic anchor (when you drift, come back to this)
|
|
18
|
+
|
|
19
|
+
## Your Task
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
Before I generate the final artifact, a few final questions:
|
|
22
|
+
|
|
23
|
+
### 1. Craft your vision statement (1-2 sentences)
|
|
24
|
+
|
|
25
|
+
This is the pithy, memorable version. Should be:
|
|
26
|
+
- **Aspirational** - Inspiring and ambitious
|
|
27
|
+
- **Specific** - Clear about what you're creating
|
|
28
|
+
- **Focused** - One clear idea, not three ideas mashed together
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
**Formula:** For [target users] who [problem], [product] is a [category] that [key benefit]. Unlike [alternatives], our product [unique differentiation].
|
|
31
|
+
|
|
32
|
+
### 2. Identify your strategic assumptions
|
|
33
|
+
|
|
34
|
+
What MUST be true for this vision to succeed?
|
|
35
|
+
|
|
36
|
+
Examples:
|
|
37
|
+
- "Remote work will continue to dominate software teams"
|
|
38
|
+
- "Engineering managers value time savings over detailed control"
|
|
39
|
+
- "Teams will trust AI-generated insights"
|
|
40
|
+
|
|
41
|
+
Mark each as:
|
|
42
|
+
- **CRITICAL** - If this is false, vision fails
|
|
43
|
+
- **IMPORTANT** - If this is false, strategy needs adjustment
|
|
44
|
+
- **NICE** - Would help but not essential
|
|
45
|
+
|
|
46
|
+
### 3. Define validation plan
|
|
47
|
+
|
|
48
|
+
How will you know if you're making progress toward this vision?
|
|
49
|
+
|
|
50
|
+
- **Metrics to track?**
|
|
51
|
+
- **Milestones to hit?**
|
|
52
|
+
- **Assumptions to validate first?**
|
|
53
|
+
- **Timeline for first validation?**
|
|
54
|
+
|
|
55
|
+
### 4. Team alignment check
|
|
56
|
+
|
|
57
|
+
On a scale of 1-10:
|
|
58
|
+
- How aligned is the team on this vision?
|
|
59
|
+
- What concerns or disagreements remain?
|
|
60
|
+
- What questions are still open?
|
|
61
|
+
|
|
62
|
+
## Example
|
|
63
|
+
|
|
64
|
+
**Vision Statement:**
|
|
65
|
+
"For engineering managers at high-growth startups who waste hours tracking distributed team status, TeamPulse is an automated team intelligence platform that provides real-time confidence without requiring any team overhead. Unlike project management tools that demand manual updates, TeamPulse automatically aggregates workflow signals to surface insights proactively."
|
|
66
|
+
|
|
67
|
+
**Strategic Assumptions:**
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
**CRITICAL:**
|
|
70
|
+
- Remote/distributed engineering teams will remain dominant (70%+ of Series A-C startups)
|
|
71
|
+
- Engineering managers value accuracy + time savings > manual control
|
|
72
|
+
- Modern engineering tools will maintain/improve API access
|
|
73
|
+
|
|
74
|
+
**IMPORTANT:**
|
|
75
|
+
- AI inference quality continues to improve (enables better pattern recognition)
|
|
76
|
+
- Teams trust automated insights (education/change management needed)
|
|
77
|
+
- Integration ecosystem remains accessible (not walled gardens)
|
|
78
|
+
|
|
79
|
+
**NICE:**
|
|
80
|
+
- Async work continues to grow (makes status even harder)
|
|
81
|
+
- Economic pressure to do more with less (increases value prop)
|
|
82
|
+
|
|
83
|
+
**Validation Plan:**
|
|
84
|
+
|
|
85
|
+
**Metrics to Track:**
|
|
86
|
+
- **Week 1-4:** 20 manager interviews - validate problem intensity
|
|
87
|
+
- **Month 1-3:** 10-team pilot - validate zero-overhead approach
|
|
88
|
+
- **Month 4-6:** $10K MRR - validate willingness to pay
|
|
89
|
+
- **Month 7-12:** 100 teams, $100K ARR - validate product-market fit
|
|
90
|
+
- **Year 2:** 1,000 teams, $1M ARR - validate scalability
|
|
91
|
+
|
|
92
|
+
**Assumptions to Validate FIRST:**
|
|
93
|
+
1. Managers spend 5+ hours/week on status (interview validation)
|
|
94
|
+
2. Teams won't update another tool (pilot validation)
|
|
95
|
+
3. AI can accurately infer status from signals (technical validation)
|
|
96
|
+
|
|
97
|
+
**Timeline:**
|
|
98
|
+
- **Weeks 1-4:** Problem validation (interviews)
|
|
99
|
+
- **Weeks 5-8:** Technical validation (proof-of-concept)
|
|
100
|
+
- **Weeks 9-16:** Solution validation (10-team pilot)
|
|
101
|
+
- **Month 4+:** Business model validation (pricing experiments)
|
|
102
|
+
|
|
103
|
+
**Team Alignment:**
|
|
104
|
+
|
|
105
|
+
**Alignment Score:** 8/10
|
|
106
|
+
|
|
107
|
+
**Remaining Concerns:**
|
|
108
|
+
- **Tech lead:** "Can we actually build accurate AI models?" → Need PoC
|
|
109
|
+
- **Design lead:** "Will managers trust automated insights?" → Need user research
|
|
110
|
+
- **Sales lead:** "Is $20/user sustainable pricing?" → Need pricing experiments
|
|
111
|
+
|
|
112
|
+
**Open Questions:**
|
|
113
|
+
- Should we start with GitHub-only integrations or multi-tool from day 1?
|
|
114
|
+
- Do we need manager-only insights or should individual contributors see their own data?
|
|
115
|
+
- How do we handle teams that don't use integrated tools?
|
|
116
|
+
|
|
117
|
+
---
|
|
118
|
+
|
|
119
|
+
## Your Turn
|
|
120
|
+
|
|
121
|
+
Please provide:
|
|
122
|
+
1. Your vision statement (using the formula)
|
|
123
|
+
2. Your strategic assumptions (marked as CRITICAL/IMPORTANT/NICE)
|
|
124
|
+
3. Your validation plan with metrics and timeline
|
|
125
|
+
4. Your team alignment score and open questions
|
|
126
|
+
|
|
127
|
+
## Final Step
|
|
128
|
+
|
|
129
|
+
When you've provided this information, I'll:
|
|
130
|
+
1. Generate your complete product vision document
|
|
131
|
+
2. Save it to `{output_folder}/product-vision-{product-name}-{date}.md`
|
|
132
|
+
3. Create a team alignment summary
|
|
133
|
+
4. Suggest next workflows:
|
|
134
|
+
- **lean-persona** to detail your target users
|
|
135
|
+
- **contextualize-scope** to define problem space boundaries
|
|
136
|
+
- **Wade's mvp** to design your minimum viable product
|
|
137
|
+
|
|
138
|
+
**Remember:** This vision is your north star, not your prison. As you learn, the vision can evolve. But change it deliberately, not drift unconsciously.
|
|
139
|
+
|
|
140
|
+
---
|
|
141
|
+
|
|
142
|
+
## Workflow Complete
|
|
143
|
+
|
|
144
|
+
After synthesis, your product vision document will include:
|
|
145
|
+
- Clear vision statement
|
|
146
|
+
- Problem definition
|
|
147
|
+
- Target market specificity
|
|
148
|
+
- Unique approach and advantages
|
|
149
|
+
- Future state (3-5 years)
|
|
150
|
+
- Guiding principles
|
|
151
|
+
- Strategic assumptions
|
|
152
|
+
- Validation plan
|
|
153
|
+
- Team alignment status
|
|
154
|
+
|
|
155
|
+
This becomes your strategic foundation for all product decisions.
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Validate Product Vision
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
**Status:** Coming in v1.2.0
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
**Agent:** Emma (Contextualization Expert)
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
**Stream:** Contextualize
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
## Overview
|
|
10
|
+
|
|
11
|
+
This validation workflow helps you review product visions to ensure they're clear, compelling, and actionable.
|
|
12
|
+
|
|
13
|
+
## What Gets Validated
|
|
14
|
+
|
|
15
|
+
- Is the vision inspirational yet achievable?
|
|
16
|
+
- Is the problem statement specific and evidence-based?
|
|
17
|
+
- Are target users clearly defined?
|
|
18
|
+
- Are success metrics measurable and meaningful?
|
|
19
|
+
- Are key assumptions explicitly stated?
|
|
20
|
+
- Does this align team around the "why"?
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
## Coming in v1.2.0
|
|
23
|
+
|
|
24
|
+
This validation workflow will be available alongside the product-vision workflow in March 2026.
|
|
25
|
+
|
|
26
|
+
## Questions?
|
|
27
|
+
|
|
28
|
+
For questions or to request early access:
|
|
29
|
+
- GitHub Issues: https://github.com/amalik/BMAD-Enhanced/issues
|
|
30
|
+
- Tag with: `workflow:product-vision` and `v1.2.0`
|